Pages

About us

Members & staff of UKIP past & present. Committed to reforming the party by exposing the corruption and dishonesty that lies at its heart, in the hope of making it fit for purpose.
Only by removing Nigel Farage and his sycophants on the NEC can we save UKIP from electoral oblivion.
SEE: http://juniusonukip.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/a-statement-re-junius.html

Wednesday, 29 February 2012

John Ison is pictured with Gerard Batten and an active member of UKIP's youth wing. Ison is the one dressed as a chicken

John Ison used to work for Nikki Sinclaire. Mr Ison's employment with Nikki Sinclaire was terminated in, shall we say, unpleasant circumstances, which involved breach of trust and the alleged "disappearance" of petty cash. It comes as no surprise to learn that Ison is very close to UKIP's leader.

He later stood against Nikki as a UKIP candidate in the last General Election. However, he soon made an ass of himself! At one hustings, he was actually forced by the Chair to withdraw a scurrilous and slanderous statement about Sinclaire, drawing hisses and shouts of "shame" from the audience. During the course of the hustings, Ison described himself as a "businessman", and a "swimming instructor". At a previous hustings, he was an "airline pilot".

He appears to be as much of a fantasist as as David Bannerman! We note with amusement that Ison once accosted Gregg Beaman, accusing him of being Junius! Ison hasn’t a clue and clearly needs some sort of medical help!

Mr Ison is clearly a troubled man. A former activist with "Fathers 4 Justice", he is believed to have been reported to the CSA for misleading them about his earnings, presumably in an attempt to avoid maintenance payments. We note that Nigel Farage has promised him an MEP seat in the West Midlands. So who is really pulling Ison's strings? Would Mr Farage like to comment on the widespread allegation that he is behind the latest attempt to discredit Nikki Sinclaire? LINK

Monday, 27 February 2012

In March last year, an e-mail emerged suggesting that UKIP's Mark Croucher had been receiving information stolen from an MEP's office. The e-mail contained dozens of highly sensitive and personal documents, relating to the MEP, and was sent by John Ison to winballpizard@yahoo.co.uk. It seems that this e-mail address belongs to Mark Croucher.

; To: 'winballpizard@yahoo.co.uk'; Subject: Download this NOT the others!!

Previously, in September 2010, immediately before the Party Conference in Torquay, Ison was believed to have met with members of UKIP's NEC, and is believed to have colluded in making vexatious allegations against Nikki Sinclaire. The allegations were to be orchestrated, with a blog posting by political pundit Iain Dale being the catalyst by which the media were to be drawn in. Dale was not happy at being duped.

And another dimension can be added to this rather sordid little man's tale. Ison was allegedly on Paul Nuttall's payroll.

The odious Paul 'Mussolini' Nuttall

The dates between which he was employed by Nuttall are uncertain, but this suggests that the UKIP hierarchy was not only party to criminal activity, in that an official received stolen information, but that it possibly sanctioned and even paid for it.

Ison is desperate to become an MEP and is willing to prostitute himself in order to achieve this aim. Such are the filth and scum that Farage and Nuttall surround themselves with. As Nikki Sinclaire has said:

'The allegations at hand are old allegations from a disgruntled ex-employee who himself is under investigation and whose motives are entirely political to pursue his advancement in UKIP'. LINK

Thursday, 23 February 2012

Nikki Sinclaire attended the police station voluntarily yesterday and has co-operated with the police.

Nikki Sinclaire MEP disputes all allegations put towards her or her staff. Nikki Sinclaire MEP and her office will continue to fully co-operate with the police on this matter.

The allegations at hand are old allegations from a disgruntled ex-employee who himself is under investigation and whose motives are entirely political to pursue his advancement in UKIP (emphasis by Junius).

Due to the on-going police investigation it would be inappropriate to comment further at this time. This is particularly frustrating to Ms Sinclaire who is eager to clear her name and has nothing to hide.

Nikki Sinclaire and three staff members have been arrested and released. We are led to understand that the arrests were made on the basis of allegations of fraud made by John Ison of UKIP. We believe the allegations to be unsustainable. GLW has also posted this information on Twitter. Updates to follow.

Wednesday, 22 February 2012

The proposed UKIP constitution will give Nigel Farage - due to his control of the NEC - total control of the MEP lists. It will also give him the power turn UKIP into a pan-European party without the need to consult the membership. LINK

Thank you for your response. It would have been nice if the 'Rules' to which you refer had also been circulated to members.

However, as you know perfectly well mere 'Rules of Procedure' will always be inferior to the principal Constitutional document. If there is any conflict between the two, the Constitution will always prevail, as it so often does in the USA - where the Constitutional issue is always fought out in the final Court of Appeal.

Para B.5.1. of your Rules of Procedure allows branches to 'nominate' candidates but not to decide. I believe that Regional Committees and Branches should have the 'right to decide'. Mere nomination to the NEC is a worthless prerogative for Regional and Branch committees because this Constitution transfers real powers of selection to the NEC.

I do not argue with your Paras S.15 to S.19 - but they make no difference to the central objection that the new Constitution cements the right of the NEC to determine who will be selected to represent UKIP in every region for Euro elections, and every constituency for Parliamentary and Local elections.

I regret to say that your response emphatically underlines my fears that UKIP Regional committees and Branch committees are no longer to be trusted to undertake the important role of selecting suitable candidates to represent the local community. Without trust you cannot expect the wholehearted support of grass root members to get behind their candidate. Without strong commited support at local level a candidate's chance of election is dramatically impaired.

Thank you so much for writing in with your observations on the constitution.

I respectfully disagree with your proposition and urge you to vote "YES" to this new document which is so important for the future of the Party.

The proposition made is inaccurate as the new Constitution will NOT change candidate selection procedures. The candidate selection procedures will be the same whether or not the Constitution is passed.

The relevant Rules permitting a Constituency Association to select from the Approved List are now within the Party's Rules of Procedure, which states:

B.5.1 It is the responsibility of branches to seek to nominate candidates for parliamentary and local elections within the branch area, acting in accordance with the rules laid down in Sections R,S,T,U and V of the Rules of Procedure.

S.15 Only applicants on the national approved list may apply to a branch or Constituency Association for an adoption/hustings meeting.

S.16 Adoption/hustings meetings shall be advertised so that all candidates on the Approved List have the right to apply for selection in any constituency.

S.17 Constituency Associations or branches which fail to select candidates within the timescale in the PPC Selection Procedure may forfeit the right to select their candidates, with the responsibility being undertaken by the region.

S.18 Where there is more than one applicant in a given constituency, an open hustings meeting must be held in accordance with the PPC Selection Procedure.

S.19 In this event, the choice of candidate shall be made through a ballot in accordance with the PPC Selection Procedure.

I suggest that these provisions make clear that the effect suggested is not in fact the reality.

Tuesday, 21 February 2012

Kevin Mahoney is happy for UKIP MEPs to sit alongside the far-right in Brussels

Andrew Edwards is well known to UKIPPERS as the author of a series of emails highlighting hypocrisy and corruption in UKIP. A recent email (see below) dealt with Godfrey Bloom's willingness to sit with far-right MEPs in the pan-European EAF (European Alliance for Freedom).

Would Kevin Mahoney care to comment on whether such responses are now considered the norm from UKIP Wales? We note that he has declined to comment on the fact that Bloom now sits alongside the leader of the French National Front in the EAF.

And what of the fact that John Bufton - unlike Nikki Sinclaire, Mike Nattrass and Trevor Colman - is happy to sit alongside assorted fascists in the EFD group? Silence can only be taken as approval.

Here is the text of Mr Edward's email:

Is Bloom planning on usurping Farage's dominance in Brussels? A somewhat tongue in cheek question of course, as we all know that Farage would not permit any such thing to happen.

So what's really behind Bloom's increasingly Europhile actions? Why is he so eager to be publicly associated with the EU's pan-EU political parties? After all, being touted as the, 'President' of the 'European Alliance for Freedom' (EAF), is hardly something that would go unnoticed:

The treasurer of the EAF, Franz Obermayr, is a member of the Austrian right wing party - the Freedom Party of Austria.

Note: As Barbara Bookerhas pointed out: Franz Obermayr was photographed last year standing alongside French National Front leaders Jean-Marie Le Pen and Bruno Gollnisch when, with Philip Claeys, Adam Walker of the BNP and others, they visited a Japanese shrine that honours convicted war criminals.

Another Austrian Freedom Party MEP, Andreas Mölzer, is an EAF Board Member.

Torsten Groß of German Far Right Party 'Citizens in anger' (BIW) is another EAF Board Member.

Isn't it time that both Farage and Bloom were asked to justify their love-fest with EU politicians, who were they British, would be banned from membership of Ukip, and called fascist???Hypocrites:

Clearly, and by their own stated position as, 'liberal politicians', both are guilty of bringing the party into disrepute by associating so closely with 'extremists'. Seems to me Farage and Bloom have no issue with ultra right politics, and only pretend to do so here in the UK to gain some sort of political advantage. Detailed analysis:

For some of pan-EU parties, in relation to Ukip, may I commend to you the comments of Barbara Booker - view via the link below (Prof Congdon especially take note):

Sunday, 19 February 2012

And yet Nigel Farage's sycophants still claim that his leadership has resulted in UKIP gaining support across the country!

Forget the spin and read the facts. Support for UKIP has collapsed and yet this is despite the increasing financial crisis in the EU! Council seats have been lost and the vote is down. The three main parties have thrashed the party in election after election. It is time to wake up and realise that Farage's 'leadership' has led UKIP to electoral disaster. LINK & LINK

Campaigning for real ale and the right to smoke in pubs is not going to get us out of the EU. And constantly comparing the current German government to the Nazis has done nothing to enhance UKIP's reputation as a serious party. UKIP is regarded as a joke in the EU Parliament due to their schoolboy antics - remember the dressing up as chickens stunt? - and their continuing obsession with Adolf Hitler and World War Two.

Members of UKIP's youth wing await with bated breath the latest election results

Roger Knapman's leadership saw the membership rise to over 30,000. Under Farage this has collapsed. Ex-members now outnumber current members and many branches exist in name only. The average age of a UKIP member is 72. LINK. The East Midlands has just over 800 members while the membership of UKIP Scotland could easily fit in a small village hall. And let us not forget that many deceased and ex-members are still listed as being active in the party database. Indeed, the situation became so desperate that Farage and his sycophants resorted to giving out free membership in an attempt stop the rot. They failed! LINK

Friday, 17 February 2012

There have been rumblings of discontent amongst the membership that the NEC gerrymandered the selection process to decide who would head up the Assembly List, this being the one part of the London elections where we might actually get someone elected.

Despite asking the membership to select the candidates that they would like to see at the top of that list (something that had to be done twice because it was cocked up first time) the NEC in their ‘infinitewisdom’ moved Steven Woolfe from no. 4 to the top slot pushing those that the members actually chose further down the list. See: LINK

Move forward one week and we find ourselves embroiled in discussion about the new constitution and the very real concern of the members that this will enable the MEP lists to be gerrymandered in the same way as the London Assembly one.

As Party Chairman Steve Crowther has felt the need to defend his new constitution and has sent out a number of emails, one of which is part copied below. The part in bold makes for interesting reading, and if we are to believe it to be true; why then was Steven Woolfe a member of about two years, resident in Chester placed above David Coburn and Lawrence Webb both of whom have been in the party a greater length of time and have been working to promote UKIP in London for quite some number of years. What does Steven Woolfe know about the workings of the London Assembly…?

It has been suggested that the new Constitution reserves new powers to the NEC to select all candidates, and so will inhibit people from standing in local elections.

In fact, the new Constitution clarifies the NEC's vitally important role in making sure that people who are going to stand – and increasingly, these days, get elected – for public office are suitable to represent us properly.

What do we mean by suitable? Essentially, we mean committed to our cause, loyal to the party, up to the job, knowledgeable about our policies and prepared to dedicate themselves, not to becoming professional politicians, but to furthering our cause and repaying the efforts of the members who got them elected.

These things are the basis of the new Assessment process for PPCs and Assembly candidates which has proved so successful (and popular with participants) since it was introduced a year ago.

And all this is happening as Nigel Farage stands in the EU parliament bemoaning the loss of democracy in Greece, maybe he should be looking closer to home and fighting for the democratic right of UKIP’s members!

Nigel was not happy with this result as Steven Woolfe - his chosen candidate - had failed to come top. So Farage had the list changed!

1 Steven Woolfe,

2 David Coburn,

3Lawrence Webb,

4 Helen Dixon,

5 Elizabeth Jones

6 Paul Oakley

And why is Steven Woolfe the chosen one? Because he can be counted on to do as he told. And that is why Mr Woolfe has been promised a top slot on the MEP lists. As we have said before:

Steven Woolfe - London Assembly candidate and Farage sycophant - has been promised a lead position on one of the lists. More than one one source has told Junius that Farage wants Woolfe to replace Gerard Batten as lead London MEP candidate. Indeed, the assembly list was altered to ensure that Woolfe became lead candidate despite David Coburn having received the most votes in the internal party elections for the list. Woolfe should have been fourth on the list but Farage - via the NEC - changed it!

And how we laughed when a slightly drunk Farage was witnessed reading the riot act to Woolfe outside a Westminster pub. This concerned Steven's reluctance to stand in the London Assembly elections. Nigel was heard to tell him that standing in the LA elections was essential if he still wanted to become an MEP. Farage also boasted that HE would have the final say on who stands as an MEP after the proposed constitutional changes were approved because, "I will control the lists as I control the NEC". LINK

And remember this extract from an email from Vanessa Crichton?

Also the membership vote for the Assembly List was re-jigged so the first 2 voted to the top of the list were put further down. I am not happy about this because this is not acceptable in a party purporting to be democratic. LINK

Why are the leadership so keen to condemn the EU as 'undemocratic' when they themselves are prepared to cast democracy to the winds and ignore the wishes of the membership because they happened to vote in a way contrary to the wishes of the Fuhrer and his sycophants? The words 'stinking hypocrisy' spring to mind! It certainly doesn't bode well for the vote on the proposed changes to UKIP's constitution!

We urge all UKIPPERS attending the upcoming UKIP conference to demand answers fom Farage and the corrupt NEC!

We also note that Mr Webb has resigned as UKIP London RO following "a campaign of denigration" levelled at the London Region. Mr Webb also states that he has been the victim of a personal vendetta at the hands of certain UKIPPERS. And who guided their hands? Look no further than Nigel Farage. Mr Webb also confirms the adjustment of the London list.

For some time now I have been aware of a campaign of denigration levelled at London Region and in particular my role as RO. Although much of the rhetoric is extremely vague in nature “London is rubbish” etc. and despite the fact much of the data (such as we collect it) shows that London Region is performing slightly above the average, it has continued unabated.

This denigration was self-evident last Thursday, when the top six candidates were interviewed to justify their position on the list. One of the interviewers tried to make the point that I had not contributed or helped in the recent F&H by-election, this continued even after I had given a full account (backed-up by Lisa Duffy) of all that I had done to help.

I believe that my role as Party RO is now untenable as it is clear that I do not have the support of the Party Leadership and soI give you notice of my intention to stand down, from that role, effective immediately.I would stress that my decision was in no way influenced by the NEC’s decision to adjust the results of the members’ ballot.

I am extremely encouraged by the qualities of those candidates on the list and feel that they will be more than capable of taking up the slack leaving me more time to devote to the Mayoral campaign and our overall objective of achieving electoral success in London.

Wednesday, 15 February 2012

Professor Tim Congdon writes to Nigel Farage concerning the proposed constitutional changes - changes that will give Farage total control of the party.

We were very disappointed to read that Prof Congdon is not prepared to discuss the fact that the new constitution will allow Farage - due to his control of the NEC - the final say on who stands for UKIP in the Euro elections. Why is Prof Congdon not concerned that the MEP lists will be rigged to ensure that Farage supporters get all the top slots? See: LINK

Dear fellow members of UKIP (and others concerned about the UK's relationship with the EU),

Members of the UK Independence Party are being asked to vote for a new Constitution. It is very important that – in the run-up to the 2014 European elections and the 2015 general election – UKIP’s members agree to and respect their party Constitution, and that the Constitution itself be clearly written and legally unambiguous. The present Conservative-LibDem coalition government is mediocre and unconvincing, as well as being essentially Europhile. These are ideal conditions for minority parties to pick up protest votes. UKIP ought to top the poll in the 2014 European elections and at least to double its share in the next general election (i.e., to reach at least 6% in the national vote). But – as far as possible – UKIP must concentrate on “outfighting” (fighting our enemies), not “infighting” (fighting each other).

Unhappily, many influential members – including, for example, Mike Nattrass MEP and several branch chairmen – are concerned about the contents of the new Constitution. Last year the party had a major debate about its attitude towards pan-European political parties. I took an active role in that debate and helped put together some of the key information on the meaning of PEPPs. I was delighted that – after an open, democratic and occasionally quite fierce debate – the party’s members voted by more than two to one that UKIP must not become associated with a PEPP.

The current concerns about the Constitution focus on two issues,

- the possibility that, under clause 3.4 of the proposed Constitution, the Leader and the National Executive Committee could override last year’s PEPP vote and take the party, and its MEPs, into a PEPP,

- and the selection of candidates for elections.

I am not in this e-mail going to cover the second of these. However, I do feel very strongly that the party membership’s opposition to a PEPP must be respected by the Leader and the NEC. I have therefore written the following Open Letter to Nigel Farage and asked him to reassure members.Will Nigel give us a clear and definite commitment that, while he is Leader, UKIP will have nothing to do – no connection whatsoever – with a pan-European political party, a structure which – as everyone knows – is a creation of the EU and a bribe from the European Parliament to MEPs? If Nigel can give us that commitment, I will support the new Constitution.The Open Letter appears below, and is also attached as a Word file and a PDF file.

Open Letter to Nigel Farage MEP, Leader of the UK Independence Party

Dear Nigel, 12th February, 2012

Several party members have written to me voicing their concern about the proposed new Constitution. Some have sought my opinion on the Constitution and asked for my recommendation about how they should vote. One of their main concerns relates to clause 3.4 which reads,

The Party may cooperate with other like-minded democratic parties, institutions and organisations for any purposes which are wholly consistent with its objectives, whether such be in the United Kingdom or elsewhere for such time and to such an extent as the Leader and the NEC deem necessary and expedient in order to advance the Party’s objectives.

A commonly-held view is that this clause would allow the Leader and the NEC to form an association between, on the one hand, the Party and its MEPs, and, on the other, a pan-European political party established under the European Parliament’s auspices.

We perhaps do not need to remind ourselves that the UK Independence Party had a major intra-party debate last year about a possible association between it and a pan-European political party. That debate took up time and energy. I was myself on the panel of speakers opposed to a PEPP relationship and spoke to three “hustings”-type meetings. I was delighted that the membership voted by a decisive margin of just over two to one that UKIP should not become associated with a PEPP. I was also sorry and disappointed when, late in the campaign, you supported in an article in Independence a link between UKIP and a PEPP. I was sorry and disappointed not least because in January 2004 you had said that UKIP was “opposed on principle to the idea of state funding of political parties, either nationally or at the European level”.(The italics are mine.)

You have frequently expressed your dismay about the lack of democracy in the European Union. I have admired your speeches and interventions in the European Parliament. I agree with you 100% that the un-democratic and centralizing direction of travel in the European Union must be deplored. But consistency then demands that UKIP conduct itself in a fully democratic spirit. If we deplore the un-democratic and centralizing direction of travel in the EU, surely UKIP itself must be a model of democracy.

I might myself be willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on clause 3.4, but several party members are unhappy. Accompanying this letter is another, from Michael Foulston, chairman of the Mole Valley and Epsom branch, to his branch members. The worries set out in that letter seem to me to be very understandable.

I now come to the crux of the matter. Will you, during your period as UKIP Leader, respect the result of the democratic 2011vote on the pan-European political party issue? More precisely, will you given a clear and definite commitment that you will discourage and prevent any association between, on the one hand, UKIP and its MEPs, and, on the other, a pan-European political party established under the auspices of the European Parliament? As we both know, such pan-European political parties are funded from the European Parliament’s budget, and its officials check and decide the compatibility of such expenditure with the EU’s wider aims. Those aims are totally at variance with UKIP’s.

If you give a clear, definite commitment that you will stop an association between UKIP and a PEPP, I will myself vote ‘Yes’ to the Constitution and I will recommend to others that they do the same; if you cannot give such a commitment, I will vote ‘No’ and recommend to others that they also vote ‘No’.Time is pressing, and I would appreciate your early reply. If I have not heard from you by Friday, 17th February, I will be voting ‘No’. (Let me note that I have little doubt that the Constitution will be voted through, whatever the outcome of this exchange between us. At any rate, if UKIP does under your leadership link up with a pan-European party, party members will know where you stand.) I look forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely,

Professor Tim Congdon CBE

Economics Spokesman, UK Independence Party

Runner-up in the 2010 UKIP leadership election

Also attached – again as a Word and PDF file – is a letter (Junius says: Letter is published below) from Michael Foulston, Chairman of the Mole Valley and Epsom branch, to his members. It is a good example of the worries being expressed by UKIP activists about the Constitution. I agree with every word and hope that the letter has wide circulation throughout the party. Nigel Farage must give us an unbreakable commitment that UKIP will not – repeat, not – become associated with a pan-European political party.

To all members of the Mole Valley + Epsom UK Independence Party (plus copy to Toby Micklethwaite and Roger Bird)

Dear Member

You should have by now received a copy of the new draft party constitution on pages 11-14 of the party’s magazine Independence. I hope that you will take the opportunity to read through this proposed change and vote.

My reason for writing to you about this matter is that having discussed it with your branch secretary Bob Cane and branch treasurer Peter Lindsay, I find that we do share some concerns. In particular, we feel it is regrettable that there has been no consultation period allowed and members are being asked to vote Yes or No to the whole document as it stands.

Our objections relate in particular to paragraph 3.4 of the draft constitution which states:-

3.4 The Party may co-operate with other like-minded democratic parties, institutions and organisations for any purposes which are wholly consistent with its objectives, whether such be in the United Kingdom or elsewhere for such time and to such extent as the Leader and the NEC may deem necessary and expedient in order to advance the Party’s objectives.

You will probably recall that the Party spent much time and trouble last summer because of the wish of certain MEPs to join a Pan-European Party. That was firmly vetoed by the membership by a vote of 5161 to 2535 on a 49·2 per cent turnout.

Bob, Peter and I are anxious to ensure that we should do all we can to ensure that the Party is not closely associated or grouped with other European parties which are at variance with the principles of UKIP. That paragraph as it stands is far too widely drawn and could be interpreted as an “enabling” clause which might allow just the sort of entanglement which was rejected last year. We would like this aspect of the document to be clarified, expanded and much more closely defined.

Obviously, each member must vote as he or she sees fit – and, indeed, I hope you will participate in the vote. However, as it currently stands, I am personally voting against this new constitution as are Bob and Peter.

Tuesday, 14 February 2012

We note that the leader of the French Front National, Marine Le Pen, is a member of the European Alliance for Freedom (EAF), a pan-European party. Godfrey Bloom is also a member. And according to the Austrian press, Godfrey Bloom is not merely a board member of the PEP, he is actually its President.

The key part of the article translates as:President of the alliance is the Britisher Godfrey Bloom of the UKIP, a party, which demands the withdrawal of Great Britain from the European Union.

So are UKIP members happy for one of their MEPs to sit alongside the leader of the Front National? And don't forget that Nigel Farage approved Bloom's joining the EAF. And you can expect more UKIP MEPs to join the EAF if the proposed UKIP constitutional changes take place! LINK

In October 2011, after her resignation from the Alliance of European National Movements (AENM), she joined the European Alliance for Freedom (EAF), a Pan-European sovereignist platform created late 20102)

"Marine Le Pen as new president of the Front National joined the European Alliance for Freedom in October 2011[152]. A pan-European sovereignist platform founded late 2010 and recognized by the European Parliament. The EAF has individual members linked to the Austrian Freedom Party of Heinz-Christian Strache, the British UKIP of Nigel Farage, and other movements such as the Sweden democrats, Vlaams Belang (Belgian flanders) and from Malta, Germany (Burger in wut), Slovakia (SNS)".

"Heinz-Christian Strache of the Freedom Party of Austria (FPO) had invited others who fall under the umbrella of the eurosceptic European Alliance for Freedom, such as French National Front leader and presidential candidate Marine Le Pen".

"Marine Le Pen, candidate of the National Front for the presidential election, was in Vienna following the invitation of the leader of the far-right party FPÖ, Heinz-Christian Strache, under the banner of the European Alliance for Freedom (EAF) which unites far-right populist factions of Europe".